NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-3963

____________

JAMES ANDREW BRIDGE,

 Appellant

v.

BRIAN FOGELSON; TINA RITCHIE; BRUCE HANELT; MARTA RIVARA; 

EUGENE F. WOZNICKI; JACK H. BRITTEN; LOUIS MELCHOR; 

ROBERT BURNS; FREDERICK P. COOK; ROBERT L. BRANDT; 

GLORIA RIVERA; KEVIN BRENNAN

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey

(D.N.J. No. 3-15-cv-03160)

District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

June 23, 2016

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge,

* FISHER** and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

(Filed: March 15, 2017)

____________

 

* Honorable Theodore A. McKee concluded his term as Chief Judge of the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on September 30, 2016.

** Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, 

assumed senior status on February 1, 2017.
2

OPINION***

____________

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

James Bridge appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and its surrender of federal jurisdiction under Colorado 

River abstention.1 We will affirm, but on a rationale different from that adopted by the 

District Court.

I

On April 24, 2013, in a special meeting of the North Warren Education 

Association, Bridge was removed from his position as President of the Association for 

reasons of gross negligence. In his place, the Association appointed Patricia DouglasJarvis, who was formerly the Vice President of the Association, to the position of 

President. In response to the motion to oust him, Bridge produced an email exchange 

between himself and Douglas-Jarvis that had occurred eleven days earlier. In one email, 

Douglas-Jarvis had used a religious epithet to describe the Superintendent of the school 

district, Brian Fogelson.

Word of Bridge’s dissemination of the email spread quickly, and Fogelson, upon 

learning of the email, filed an affirmative action complaint. Pursuant to its affirmative 

 

*** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 

does not constitute binding precedent.

1 See Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 

(1976).
3

action procedure, the school’s Affirmative Action Officer, Louis Melchor, investigated 

the complaint. After investigating, the Affirmative Action Officer concluded that Bridge 

had perpetuated the discriminatory nature of the original email and that his distribution 

had disrupted the orderly operations of the school and caused the Superintendent 

unnecessary emotional distress in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 

board policy.

After disseminating the email, Bridge also took other actions in response to his 

removal as President. Bridge submitted a letter to the Association’s Executive Council 

claiming that his removal was unlawful and demanding that he be reinstated. Bridge 

placed copies of his letter around the school. In response to his letter, staff members 

complained to the Superintendent about Bridge’s behavior. Three staff members in 

particular also complained to the Affirmative Action Officer about Bridge’s bullying and 

harassment during his time as President of the Association. The Affirmative Action 

Officer investigated these hostile work environment claims, in addition to the earlier 

investigation, and concluded that Bridge’s actions had created a hostile work 

environment in violation of board policy. The first investigation resulted in Bridge’s 

employment and adjustment increments for the 2013-14 school year being withheld, 

while other disciplinary consequences were a consequence of the second investigation.

In response, Bridge has filed numerous complaints in various state and federal 

venues, including with the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission, the 
4

New Jersey Commissioner of Education, the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. Bridge filed this suit in the 

District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging he was deprived of his First 

Amendment rights.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The District Court 

surrendered federal jurisdiction based on its invocation of Colorado River abstention. 

Following its decision to abstain, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion on 

November 17, 2015, and dismissed Bridge’s complaint with prejudice. Bridge timely 

appealed.

II

The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over an order granting a Rule 

12(b)(6) motion.2In deciding a motion to dismiss, we “accept all factual allegations as 

true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine 

whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to 

relief.”3

 

2 Winer Family Tr. v. Queen, 503 F.3d 319, 325 (3d Cir. 2007).

3 Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).
5

III

Bridge raises three arguments on appeal: (1) the District Court improperly 

considered a New Jersey Administrative Law Judge’s report in dismissing his complaint; 

(2) Colorado River abstention does not apply here; and (3) even if Colorado River

abstention applies, the District Court, rather than dismissing his complaint, should have 

stayed the case pending the outcome of his New Jersey administrative proceedings. We 

do not reach these arguments, for in our view there is a non-abstention based ground 

upon which we must affirm the District Court’s dismissal.

Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, bars relitigation of issues 

adjudicated in a prior action. Bridge’s First Amendment claims were recently addressed 

by New Jersey’s Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). In certain 

circumstances, state agency determinations “may be given preclusive effect . . . where the 

agency is acting in a judicial capacity.”

4

 “We have explained that ‘in determining 

whether a litigant has been given a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate a claim, we must 

take into account the possibility of appellate review’ because a full and fair opportunity to 

litigate ‘includes the possibility of a chain of appellate review.’”

5 PERC is a New Jersey 

 

4 Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 259 (3d Cir. 2005).

5 DePolo v. Bd. of Supervisors of Tredyffrin Twp., 835 F.3d 381, 387 (3d Cir. 

2016) (quoting Crossroads Cogeneration Corp. v. Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc., 159 

F.3d 129, 137 (3d Cir. 1998)).
6

administrative agency acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.6It rejected Bridge’s argument 

that his First Amendment rights were violated as a result of the same events at issue in 

this federal case.7 Under New Jersey law, Bridge had a right to appeal PERC’s decision

to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court within 45 days of its 

issuance.8 He did not do so. PERC’s decision is now a final judgment entitled to 

preclusive effect in federal court.9“In public employee discipline matters, the public 

interest in the finality of the litigated disciplinary matter must weigh in the equitable 

application of estoppel principles, for it is an unnamed party in interest to the efficient 

and fair resolution of civil service discipline.”

10 Bridge’s federal complaint was properly 

dismissed.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.

 

6 See City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benevolent Ass’n, 713 A.2d 

472, 479 (N.J. 1998); Galloway Twp. Bd. of Educ. v. Galloway Twp. Educ. Ass’n, 393 

A.2d 218, 224 (N.J. 1978).

7 N. Warren Reg’l Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., No. 2016-85 (N.J. P.E.R.C. June 30, 

2016). The New Jersey Commissioner of Education also rejected claims brought by 

Bridge stemming from the events at issue in this case. James Bridge, No. 306-16 (N.J. 

Comm’r of Educ. Aug. 22, 2016). Bridge did not exercise his right to appeal the 

Commissioner’s decision to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. See N.J. 

Stat. Ann. § 18A:6-9.1(a).

8 See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:13A-5.4(d); N.J. Ct. R. 2:4.1(b).

9 See DePolo, 835 F.3d at 387 & n.20.

10 Winters v. N. Hudson Reg’l Fire & Rescue, 50 A.3d 649, 660 (N.J. 2012).